Hope: Women Artists' Project was held from
15th january to 17th february. Midway through this event, near the end
of january, came a call from national arts council that management had
complaints that one of the works was too scary/extreme quote/unquote
and wished us to remove it. We were asked to modify the work. The work
before consisted of a L-shaped passageway (echoing the arch of the door
called the Gate of Hope) made of wooden framework covered with white
fabric. This stood at the entrance via victoria/bras basah road. There
was an entrance with white pleated curtains, covered with red ribbons.
within are dolls wrapped in blue or red material and hung vertically.
There are text words such as love etc.
Modification took two forms: the vertical hanging was changed to
horizontal (like the sarong cradle)and more ribbons added all over the
exterior of the passageway.
Management having viewed the modified work wihtout artists present, was
not satisfied and reiterated instructions. The artists wrote a letter
asking for discussion with management and with tenants who complained.
The management did not respond to this request but reiterated their
instructions. Artists then sent a letter protesting their decision,
and stating disappoinment by the lack of communication. At all times,
no face-to-face meeting took place.
Deconstruction by artists on that site took place after this, The work
was altered by what i would call disembowelling. Sawed-off or
dismantled remnants were carried to other sites. There was still a
reconstructed artwork left when deadline on 3rd february passed.
Management then took steps to remove it themselves after a verbal
refusal to take steps to remove it was given.
The response of the chijmes managment to the concerns of the tenants is just
so predictable. Also predictable is result of the artists attempts to save
their work -- with no real bargaining power, the battle is lost before its
begun. It seems that one can never win when one is fighting against the
opinion of paying patrons, and the conservative public, whose sensitivities
we are always asked to respect, even when these sensitivities have no
respect for the sensitivities of others, such as artists. People who are
easily offended, and think that being offended gives them a right to shut
others up -- they are the ones with truly offensive behaviour.
Also predictable is NAC's role in this. once again, instead of protecting
the interests of the artists, they speak on behalf of whoever is
unhappy with the artist.
when I was in secondary school, the conduct and effectiveness of our student
body was such that, in any issue that called for negotiations between the
teaching staff and the student body, I felt that our views were always
represented, that the student council existed as a middle-man between school
and student, with the interests of the students as first priority.
more often than not, when there's conflict of views/interests between an
artist body and another party, It seems to me that NAC's first priority is
not to understand the artist position, but to act on behalf of the other
party to curtail the artists right. No clearer illustration of that than the
nac's decision to withdraw funding from all performance art when a coupla of
events ran afoul of the govt.
A suggestion:
write something simple, explaining the situation that the work and the
artists are facing, and asking for any viewers who might want to support the
work, or who do not see the need to remove or alter the work, or even, those
might be against the removal of the work, to leave a short note. place this
prominently near the artwork. Provide writing materials so that its
convenient for any member of the public to just write something.
The aim is to show that for every member of the public who are against it,
there are those who support it or see nothing wrong with it. The public's
voice (esp if a paying customer) is always more influential than an artists
voice when dealing with commercial authorities. If we can use their voice,
we gain more bargaining power.
Though I make this suggestion, I seriously do not know how many members of the
public will bother to help. There is also a question of verification. How do
we convince the management that it wasnt the artists who wrote those things?
I have mentioned before that sometimes artists do want to detach
themselves from issues pertaining to lobbying, advocacy and all other
things political, and some see it as a kind of diversion from their
work--that its aesthetic 'purity' (if there is such a notion) is
contaminated by external forces that have nothing to do with the
intimate dialogue between the artist and her public/audience, mediated
by the artwork. Noise, static, the crackle of a bugged telephone. But
when things of this nature happens (the censorship exercised by Chijmes
over the 'unsuitability' of an artwork in commercial premises), then we
have to wake up to the reality that in Singapore, politics is often
grafted onto a piece of work and it is something we have to
confront--this foreign element that has become somewhat embedded--and
as artists we have to decide if this relationship with this element is
going to be symbiotic, commensal, parasitic etc...
Of course the other argument is that every piece of art is inherently
political and a product of historical materialism yadda yadda,
(Adrienne Rich has remarked once in one of her poems that if you want
to write a poem about a woman braiding her hair, then you have to know
how it is braided, why it is braided, and what else happens in the
country where that woman lives) and maybe this is something that needs
to be acknowledged or rediscovered. That when censorship encroaches
upon an artwork, what happens is not so much a set of politics
attaching itself perniciously to an apolitical body, but a work which
already possesses its own sense of politics--with this recognition,
then we open up an arena where we can have room for negotiation. Here I
am not talking about the kind of negotiation that has been refused by
the Chijmes mafia but one which is perhaps internalised within the work
itself. The artist and censor made intimate within the work--clashing,
struggling, fucking, etc...
Like spy, I was also trying to figure out the different avenues for
recourse available for artists caught in such a predicament. Evidently,
the NAC in this case does not seem to be on the side of the artists at
all. I find it appalling that its role as a mediator is slanted so
flagrantly towards the Chijmes management, and I wonder how long this
kind of corporate cocksucking will continue before NAC realises that it
is gradually denigrating its credibility as an agency that, in an ideal
situation, is supposed to be championing or at least protecting the
rights of artists. If only there was any kind of conscience operating
in NAC that recognises that the violation of the rights of artists is
an unacceptable act, then maybe certain unscrupulous corporate bodies
like Chijmes might be put under a blacklist, ie, NAC will not support
any future Arts activities conducted within its premises. If only. If
only money didn't talk so loud.
What outrages me most, however, is the refusal by the Chijmes pricks
for any kind of negotiation, thus making them unaccountable for their
actions. How long can we put up with such profane disregard for decent
human communication? And my guess is that they are not committing
themselves to any answers, because whatever PR mechanisms they have to
explain their actions will not be able to devise a lexicon that will
disguise the fact that their decision was based on irrational, and even
Fascist principles. What the hell is scary/extreme? Haw Par Villa has
18 levels of carnage and torture, and Primary Schools send their kids
there for excursions. One day I will compile a dictionary of terms used
to explain acts of censorship:
'cultural sensitivity'
'racially inflammatory'
'potentially seditious'
'damage the moral fabric of society'
'threat to national security'
'undermine heterosexual nuclear family unit'
'erode population pyramid'
'mockery of the government'
'arouses deep-seated repressed desire to masturbate in public'
'will unleash the Beast in all of us'
'has potential to incite mass unrest, mass hysteria, mass
exodus/migration, mass orgasm'
'makes fun of unmarried civil servants with side partings--male and
female'
'glorifies deviant behaviour like boycotting queues, spitting
discreetly and not voting for ruling party'
'can result in profound changes to the climate, handphone reception,
drinking water and the menstrual cycles of the local population'
etc etc etc
The strategies that I can offer can fall into two kinds of categories,
both political. On the macro-political front, I would perhaps propose:
1) Alert press for article. Potentially sensationalist, so maybe they'd
pick it up. Angle would be why patrons/tenants find the work
objectionable. Denial of social realities? Interview with various
people.
Tenant: People come here to eat and enjoy, if they want to see
abandoned babies they should go to Romania.
Patron: I was hungry when I walked into Chijmes, and when I saw those
babies I think it unearthed latent cannibalistic instincts, which I
wasn't prepared to confront at that point of time in my life. I ran
away, resisting the urge to get myself a blowpipe from one of those
quaint little shops selling Southeast Asian collectibles.
Housewife: Aiyoh! These type of things give nightmare only. Put here
for what?
Psychologist: Chuckyphobia, which is a rarely-documented fear of dolls,
ranks alongside similar phobias of clowns and that Thing in the
cupboard as infantile paranoid syndromes carried over to adulthood.
The ubiquitous Anthony Yeo: Our teenagers don't know enough about sex,
and it is our failure as a society that we find abandoned babies
everywhere, even here.
2) Writing in to the press to highlight the incident. Implicitly
demanding that the Chijmes management offer their side of the story.
This would fall into the category of letters which are addressed to
bureaucratic bodies when usually most channels are exhausted (ie, would
Singtel, LTA, the Police care to comment on this?) What are their
comments on why they think that the sight of babies are offensive. This
is, however, assuming that the press is non-partisan. The person
writing in could be one of the artists of the WAP. Or to provide some
kind of ballast, as pointed out by spy, a 'non-partisan' member of the
public, a Chijmes patron perhaps who is bewildered at the
disintegrating facade of the work and demands some answers. This will
perhaps be a launching-point for the artists to jump in with their
account, inevitably drawing Chijmes into the discussions. They don't
want a private dialogue, drag it out into the open. I can write in if
needed, from the position of one wondering whether the act of
'vandalism' committed on the artwork (ie, deconstruction) was
intentional, whether the management had made sure that it has not been
tampered with by patrons, maybe suggest something really stupid in a
kaypoh Singaporean way like erecting a fence around it to prevent such
things from happening in the future, etc.
3) Documenting the process and putting it up at the censorship archives
hosted by sintercom. Photographs, a written account, chronological
journal, etc.
Of course there is a degree of risk involved for the above, and it is
up to the WAP artists to weigh and consider the repercussions on their
future dealings with Chijmes.
On the micro-political front, I would suggest that artists, being
inherently cunning, devious, and self-empowering, incorporate the act
of censorship into their work. Susie has already mentioned that the
work had undergone some kind of deconstruction to illustrate that it
has been mutilated. Now, one thing that excited me was that the
original work (correct me if I'm wrong) was supposed to comment on the
practice of leaving babies at the gate of the convent to be adopted by
nuns. Now, we have a case here where the revamped (yet, 'conserved')
convent has refused the adoption of 'babies'. Altruism, spirituality
has given way to crass commercialism. Nuns are turning over in their
graves under weeping stone angels. I think the work here gains an added
texture and it would be interesting to see these dolls later
reappearing in later works.
Your babies' destinies as orphans have been inscribed on their
foreheads by the false inheritors of the hollow shell of a convent. Who
will now adopt them, adopt a cause--for me, the struggle is always not
so much against shallow callousness, but deep-seated ignorance.
While some
details differ, the core point is to write a letter and get it published/
publicised.
May I suggest a clear, somewhat detailed, but nonetheless
concise text explaining the exhibition, and explaining the events (the
failure in negotiations, etc.) is written.
Attached to this text should be a simple statement that singles out the NAC
for their failure to engage artists and their interests.
There are of course several conflicting interests at stake here. I think
the strategy is to single out one particular conflict, and to rally support
for the artists' position in this particular conflict. From reading the
exchange of correspondence, it seems that focusing on the failure of the
NAC to engage with the artists is the one conflict that can get the most
support for the artists' position -- from the arts community at large, as
well as the "general" public.
CHIJMES management and their tenants have their concerns and while they too
should have engaged the artists, they are arguably less responsible for
attending to the artists' concerns than are the NAC.
After this letter is composed -- with the explanation of events, with the
simple statement that demands accountability from the NAC for their failure
to engage the artists -- then we should canvas as many signatures as
possible, and send it to The Straits Times, post it on as many web-sites as
possible, mass email it, etc. And of course, send it to the NAC as well --
send it to Lui Thai Ker directly.
The point is to not to spell out a detailed argument against the NAC in the
letter, but to demand accountability, and shame them into engagement. A
public forum should then be arranged, emphasising that the CHIJMES incident
exemplifies the larger issues that are at stake (eg. what is the role of
the NAC when it comes to these kinds of conflicts, and how have they
performed in their role; what kind of leadership is the NAC providing the
arts community?). The forum, in turn, should be reported about.
Hope you find these suggestions useful. I'm sure the artists have a lot of
support from within the arts community e-group, and it is precisely issues
like these where we need to exercise our capacity to mobilise toward some
action -- certainly a letter to the public, and a public forum with the NAC.